turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Category talk:Candidates for deletion
I went ahead and created this. We've been on a bit of a deleting kick, lately, and it might be good to take a moment and review to make sure these articles are worth deleting in every instance. :Sounds like a very good idea. Of course, this will set us back in our run for 5000, but better to cross that line with quality articles. Turtle Fan 18:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Five articles We should probably address the present candidates. And reason we should keep them?TR 16:34, October 16, 2009 (UTC) :Hiryu might still be relevant. The rest? Let's dump 'em. Turtle Fan 19:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC) So--What are we going to do with this stuff? I move we keep Hiryu and Divorce in edited forms, give USMC further consideration, and delete the other four. Turtle Fan 03:28, October 26, 2009 (UTC) ::USMC should definitely stay, but it needs more work. ::Divorce--I don't know. Aside from RB, where divorce was once of the underlying issues, I don't know that the article adds anything. :::Well most articles we have are only relevant to one story. Most of them don't even have peripheral connections to other stories. Turtle Fan 04:25, October 26, 2009 (UTC) ::Hiryu does no harm. It was probably there. ::The rest, let's dump. TR 04:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC) :::Sounds good. Turtle Fan 04:25, October 26, 2009 (UTC) I finally did something with them. I kept USMC and 2G Characters pending further consideration, granted divorce a pardon since it had been cleaned up and reduced to having sections in relevant stories, and deleted the rest. And added Events, and of course put this into Parent Category. Turtle Fan 18:47, November 23, 2009 (UTC) Two Georges Character List Should be deleted, I think. These were created early in the wiki's history probably to make it easier to create new articles. However, it is redundant with the characters sub-cat and a pain to maintain. ML4E 19:56, January 15, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. Turtle Fan 22:26, January 15, 2010 (UTC) Time for another dump Unless we have good reasons to keep what's here now, I shall be deleting within 48 hours. TR 21:21, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :You plan your dumps 48 hours in advance? Mine just kind of happen. ::I knew I going to get a smartass response. TR 22:53, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :::I daresay you wanted one. Turtle Fan 23:30, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :The only one I'm tempted to defend is Salient. Atomic propulsion feels like it could be so much more than it is, but as I think back through the books, maybe not. Turtle Fan 21:35, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Konstantin Tsiolkovsky :Why is this page a candidate for deletion? The Soviet spaceship in the story was named for him - is that not enough reason for him to have a page here? I think there are hundreds of other pages whose reason for existence on this Wiki is precisely of the same order.Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 22:42, June 22, 2016 (UTC) ::See the talk pages on both, and actually no, we don't have historical figure pages based solely on ship name. In fact, we rather recently deleted those. TR (talk) 22:59, June 22, 2016 (UTC) That takes care of that Good deletion dump.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:26, July 8, 2016 (UTC) Deletion Progress So, in order to make things more manageable, instead of tearing through each letter, I am pausing after we have 20 articles in this category. That should give people a chance to review and comment. TR (talk) 02:54, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :Appreciate it. And again, please take my silence for ascent. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:43, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :Ditto. ML4E (talk) 16:53, July 25, 2016 (UTC) Jonathan Jumping the Gun Jonathan: I previously said I didn't mind you commenting on other historical figures prior to TR reaching them but I now think you are abusing that privilege. You appear to be going through the category alphabetically and cluttering up the history list with unwanted comments on delete or not. I am now telling you I no longer want to see that. Further, you do not have the privilege of marking files for deletion. I called you once on "Historical Figures" so now you went and did the same for "Living Figures". I do not like or appreciate such sophistry so stop it. You may mark gibberish articles like "Dzhenerik albuterol valtrex bez recepty" which I deleted. ML4E (talk) 20:23, July 28, 2016 (UTC) :I've already complained about this before, and now I happily join my objection to ML4E's. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:01, July 28, 2016 (UTC) August 1, 2016 I went slightly more gung ho, getting up to 32 rather than stopping at 20 because the G's were a small number, and the H's went on and on. No I's, BTW. TR (talk) 03:05, August 2, 2016 (UTC) November 25, 2016 All we have now are living people and Castro. I know the idea of creating a "living people refernces" page was floated. Did we want to do that, or should we just stick these people on the historical references page? TR (talk) 23:55, November 26, 2016 (UTC) :Hist refs is a really good idea. Separating them from that would be splitting hairs.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:08, November 27, 2016 (UTC) :I agree that there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to have them in separate articles since the references would be mostly to things done in the past, i.e. recent history for the living. This, plus the maintenance of moving the living to the historical when they pass away, suggests one article would be better. ML4E (talk) 19:19, November 27, 2016 (UTC) ::Castro has underscored the pain in the ass maintenance would be. TR (talk) 05:44, November 28, 2016 (UTC) Nikita, JFK, and Castro in TGlad Going over TGlad chapter 1 again, the history is glossed over briefly, and there is no reference, even the obliquest one, to the rulers of any country. To eliminate speculation, it's probably best to eliminate those three from TGlad characters.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:38, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :I need to reread the chapter myself before commenting. Speculation can be rolled back so that's not a problem especially since there hasn't been any since we pruned the articles. ML4E (talk) 21:52, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by speculation. Whether or not JFK, Khrushchev and Castro along with the Cuban Missile Crisis were the POD or not is something I will need to reread. It may be clear enough without any specific name to justify keeping. Your comment elsewhere about the possibility that Molotov succeeded Stalin strikes me as far more speculative, based on my recollections. ML4E (talk) 22:01, February 17, 2017 (UTC)